VanEck Vectors Emerging Income Opportunities Active ETF vs State Street SPDR S&P Global Dividend ETF
These ETFs do not share enough listed holdings to estimate overlap.
Scored across Cost (35%), Fund size (20%), Holdings breadth (25%), Income (20%). Past performance is excluded.
See full breakdown ↓Overlap is calculated from each fund's full published holdings list. Where there are no shared listed holdings it is shown as not reliably estimable.
EBND and WDIV are both Income & Dividends ETFs. WDIV has the lower management fee (0.35% vs 0.95% p.a.). A holdings overlap is not reliably estimable for this pair.
VanEck Vectors Emerging Income Opportunities Active ETF
VanEck
State Street SPDR S&P Global Dividend ETF
State Street (SPDR)
Comparison scores reflect how each ETF compares to the other on these specific dimensions only. They are not absolute ratings or recommendations.
Key differences at a glance
Which of EBND and WDIV fits depends on your objectives, not on one being superior. Where the two funds differ most:
Category scores compare these two ETFs only and are not absolute ratings.
WDIV has the lower management fee - the one objective "cheaper" axis.
WDIV is the larger fund. Larger is not inherently better, but greater scale can support tighter spreads and lower closure risk.
WDIV spreads exposure across more holdings (EBND 74, WDIV 93); the other is more concentrated. Neither is inherently better - it depends on whether you want breadth or a focused tilt.
EBND distributes approximately 6.15% and WDIV approximately 4.5%; EBND carries the higher estimated distribution yield. A higher yield may suit an income focus; a lower one may suit a growth or tax-efficiency focus. Yields are estimates and are not guaranteed; past performance is not a reliable indicator of future returns.
Green highlights the factually lower fee or higher scale/income figure. Performance is never highlighted. Data from issuer disclosures, reviewed quarterly; sector and geography figures for some funds are category-inferred estimates, clearly labelled on each fund's page.
Yield figures are estimates based on recent distributions and may vary. Past distributions are not a reliable indicator of future distributions.
Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future returns.
Top 10 listed holdings for each fund, from issuer disclosures.
EBND top holdings
WDIV top holdings
Sector weights for EBNDare approximate, inferred from the fund's category.
EBND sectors
WDIV sectors
Geographic weights for EBNDare approximate, inferred from the fund's category.
EBND geography
WDIV geography
Choosing between EBND and WDIV depends on your goals, time horizon and current holdings, not on one being the right answer for everyone. The main differences are summarised above, with the complete data below.
EBND and WDIV do not share enough listed top holdings to reliably estimate a holdings overlap. Compare their fees, holdings and sectors on this page.
WDIV has the lower management fee. EBND charges 0.95% per year ($95 per year on a $10,000 investment) and WDIV charges 0.35% per year ($35 per year on a $10,000 investment). The difference is $60 per year per $10,000 invested.
EBND (VanEck Vectors Emerging Income Opportunities Active ETF) manages approximately $284.41M and WDIV (State Street SPDR S&P Global Dividend ETF) manages approximately $390M. Fund size can affect liquidity and bid-ask spreads but does not by itself change the management fee.
EBND and WDIV do not share enough listed top holdings to estimate overlap, so whether holding both duplicates your exposure depends on their full constituent lists.
There is no universally right choice. It depends on your goals, time horizon and existing holdings. EBND charges 0.95% and WDIV charges 0.35%, so WDIV has the lower management fee. Compare their fees, holdings and sectors above and consider each fund's Product Disclosure Statement and Target Market Determination.
General information only.This comparison and the ETFLens tools on this page provide general information about two exchange-traded funds and do not take into account your personal objectives, financial situation or needs. It is not personal financial product or investment advice. ETFLens does not hold an Australian Financial Services Licence (AFSL). Holdings overlap is calculated from each fund's published holdings (full lists where the issuer publishes one, listed top holdings otherwise), and fee data is sourced from fund manager PDS documents and updated quarterly. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future returns. Consider each fund's Product Disclosure Statement (PDS) and Target Market Determination (TMD), and seek advice from a registered tax agent or licensed financial adviser, before making investment decisions.
Check your portfolio overlap
See how these ETFs interact with your other holdings.
Open overlap checker →Build your portfolio
ProModel a portfolio with these ETFs and see projected fees and income.
Build a portfolio →View full ETF profiles
Holdings, fees, sectors and distributions for each fund.
EBND full profile →WDIV full profile →Compare another pair
Enter any two ASX ETF tickers to see their side-by-side comparison.
Compare other ETFs →